The row over the Commons Speaker matters, but it hardly helps the people of Gaza.
The Speaker's mis-step has shattered some MPs' confidence in his ability to be an impartial chair. But much of the outrage appears confected, and in all the political chaos, the people of Gaza seem to have been forgotten.
We sometimes forget just how bizarre the House of Commons can be. The complex rules and arcane procedures make perfect sense to people who've spent half a lifetime in Westminster, but to the rest of the country they can appear ridiculous.
This week's row over the Speaker's handling of a debate on Gaza has dragged those weird conventions into the spotlight. It's left many people wondering what on earth is going on, and why a debate on Gaza descended into an acrimonious political argument?
What happened?
Chaos descended on an SNP opposition day -- one of a handful of opportunities for the third-largest party in the Commons to choose the subject for debate.
It chose to demand an immediate ceasefire in Gaza, repeating a call the party has made many times before. But it also created a headache for Labour, struggling to find a position on the crisis that all sides in the party can accept.
Labour's leaders didn't want to support the SNP motion, in part because they don't want to be seen following their rivals, but also because the motion accused Israel of the "collective punishment" of Palestinian civilians -- a war crime -- and wording that goes too far for Sir Keir Starmer.
So Labour put down its own amendment, calling for an "immediate humanitarian ceasefire" but without the criticism of Israel.
But there’s a long-standing convention that one opposition party shouldn't amend another’s motion -- after all, if Labour feels so strongly about the issue, why doesn't it use one of its own days to highlight it?
Enter the Speaker, Sir Lindsay Hoyle -- formerly a Labour MP, now an independent figure, looking out for the interests of all MPs, regardless of party.
He ruled the Labour amendment should be voted on, with the SNP motion following it. And then the sky fell in.
Why is this such a big deal?
Imagine you're the SNP -- you only get a handful of days to dictate debate in the Commons, and the Speaker has just turned your opposition day into a Labour one.
SNP MPs walked out of the Chamber, and the party's leader at Westminster says he's lost confidence in Sir Lindsay, demanding his resignation.
The Conservatives walked out too amid Wednesday's chaos, and while they're not yet demanding the Speaker goes, a few backbenchers have signed a motion saying they've lost confidence in him.
At its heart, this is about whether the Speaker can be trusted to act impartially, sticking to the rules of the Commons without showing favour to one side.
His ruling helped Sir Keir Starmer out of an enormous hole. If he'd followed convention and blocked Labour's amendment, as many as 100 MPs could have voted with the SNP -- a huge embarrassment for the Labour leadership.
Instead, Labour gets to say it led calls for a ceasefire, even though it was the SNP's idea.
Sir Lindsay appeared shell-shocked as he apologised in the Chamber -- finally realising the extent of his mistake. Even if he survives the current attempt to unseat him, he is likely to limp on no longer than the next election.
Turning catastrophe into a political football
It matters that the Speaker is trusted by all sides, and it's clear that confidence has been shattered for at least a minority of MPs.
But no-one emerges from this with much dignity. Sir Lindsay Hoyle ignored advice from his officials that he was making a big mistake. Labour stands accused of putting the Speaker under intense pressure to make a partisan political decision -- including the disputed claim of a threat to unseat him if he didn't help them out.
The SNP is justifiably furious at being sidelined, but while it's consistently campaigned for an end to the violence in Gaza, its leaders knew their motion would open up a huge divide in Labour -- very helpful in an election year.
The Conservatives, meanwhile, see an opportunity to push the spotlight away from their own problems, with backbenchers demanding the Speaker go, and even the Prime Minister joining in.
If the intention was to present Parliament as an out-of-touch, nonsensical talking shop, self-obsessed and increasingly irrelevant, then it's very much job done.
But if the idea was to highlight the plight of Palestinian civilians, the desperate need to end months of violence, and the tens of thousands of deaths since the Hamas attack on Israel in October, our elected representatives couldn't have done a worse job.
